If the vendee of a land installment contract has paid in accordance with the terms of the contract for a period of five years or more from the date of the first payment or has paid toward the purchase price a total sum equal to or in excess of twenty per cent thereof, the vendor may recover possession of his property only by use of a proceeding for foreclosure and judicial sale of the foreclosed property as provided in section 2323.07 of the Revised Code. Such action may be commenced after expiration of the period of time prescribed by sections 5313.05 and 5313.06 of the Revised Code. In such an action, as between the vendor and vendee, the vendor shall be entitled to proceeds of the sale up to and including the unpaid balance due on the land installment contract.
Chapter 5313. of the Revised Code does not prevent the vendor or vendee of a land installment contract from commencing a quiet title action to establish the validity of his claim to the property conveyed under a land installment contract nor from bringing an action for unpaid installments.
Chapter 5313. of the Revised Code does not prevent the vendor and vendee from cancelling their interest in a land installment contract under section 5301.331 of the Revised Code.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 49
cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: Ma v. Gomez, 2023 Ohio 524 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
Ma v. Gomez, 2023 Ohio 524 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 15ד17, 1992) (“Conversely, where a buyer fails to meet either of [the R.C. 5313.07] requirements, the seller may seek forfeiture of the property as provided for in R.”
Kiser v. Coleman, 503 N.E.2d 753 (Ohio 1986). · cites it 9דFor the reasons set forth below, we hold that R.C. 5313.07 and 5313.08 may not be applied to land contracts entered into before the effective date of the statutes.”
In Re Coykendall, 265 B.R. 859 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2001). · cites it 21דIn this respect, however, Ohio law, in order to also protect the vend-ee-purchaser’s equitable interest in the property, provides that where the vendee-purchaser has paid in accordance with the terms of the contract for a period of more than five (5) years-as is the situation in…”
Lovejoy v. Diel, 2021 Ohio 1124 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 7דSee R.C. 5313.07 ("If the vendee of a land installment contract has paid in accordance with the terms of the contract for a period of five years or more from the date of the first payment or has paid toward the purchase price a total sum equal to or in excess of twenty per cent…”
Ret. Mgt. Co. v. Nsong, 2017 Ohio 5869 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 6דFinally, she asserted that a foreclosure proceeding pursuant to R.C. 5313.07 was required for this action, rather than a forcible entry and detainer proceeding, and thus the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on this matter.”
Bradford v. B & P Wrecking Co., 872 N.E.2d 331 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4דAppellee filed a memorandum in opposition, arguing that he had never instituted a lawsuit under either R.C. 5313.07 or 5313.08; therefore, he was not barred from bringing a foreclosure action.”
Hyle v. Porter, 117 Ohio St. 3d 165 (Ohio 2008). “) In addition, R.C. 5313.07, also considered in Kiser , includes the following language: “If the vendee of a land installment contract has paid * * * for a period of five years or more * * *, the vendor may recover possession of his property only by use of a proceeding for…”
Cuyahoga Metro. Hous. Auth. v. Watkins, 491 N.E.2d 701 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 4דPursuant to R.C. 5313.07 4 and under the conditions stated therein, however, a forcible entry and detainer action will not lie against a vendee of a land installment contract.”
Kassoudji v. Stamps, 2016 Ohio 7693 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 8דChapter 5313 applies, R.C. 5313.07 indicates that where a contract has been in existence for five years or more from the date of the first payment, or the vendee has paid more than 20% towards the purchase price, the vendor must use a proceeding for foreclosure and judicial sale…”
Davis v. Johnson, 2021 Ohio 85 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 3דThe trial court erred when it failed to vacate the judgment of default and dismiss the matter with prejudice pursuant to the appellant’s emergency ex parte motion to vacate default judgment pursuant to ORCP 60(B) because the trial court lacked jurisdiction pursuant to ORC…”
Sood v. Rivers, 2024 Ohio 3064 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 3דR.C. 5313.07. {¶30} “R.C. 5313.07 is designed to give additional protection to the vendee of a land installment contract who has occupied the property for a substantial period of time, five years or more, or who has acquired substantial equity in the property, 20 percent or more…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.